Leonardo Painting’s Restoration Bitterly Divides Art Experts

PARIS — Leonardo da Vinci’s “Virgin and Child With Saint Anne” does not enjoy the same star status as his Mona Lisa. But for the Louvre, it is an equally treasured masterpiece.

Now a battle is raging over the painting’s restoration, pitting the museum and some experts who defend the project against others who believe the cleaning of the 500-year-old canvas has been too aggressive and may already have caused irreversible damage.

Two of France’s leading art experts have resigned from the advisory committee supervising the painting’s restoration to protest the way it has been conducted, according to art specialists have spoken to them.

Neither of the two experts, Ségolène Bergeon Langle, the former director of conservation for the Louvre and France’s national museums, nor Jean-Pierre Cuzin, the former director of paintings at the Louvre, has publicly disclosed the precise reasons behind the resignations; the Louvre has not commented except to confirm their departures.

“At every step along the way I prepared detailed reports in writing to the Louvre to explain my views, my wishes, my concerns” regarding the restoration of the Leonardo, Ms. Bergeon Langle said in a telephone interview. “I took the position for a long time that I would leave if certain red lines were crossed.”

Mr. Cuzin, meanwhile, was widely said to be unhappy that more rather than less work was done on the painting.

The cleaning of the painting was completed in mid-December, leaving a brighter, crowd-pleasing image. The resignations, particularly that of Ms. Bergeon Langle, who is regarded as one of the world’s leading experts in painting conservation, have rattled the Louvre and trained the spotlight on the work of its obscure committee of restoration advisers.

“Their departure is an extremely regrettable loss,” said Jacques Franck, consulting expert to the Armand Hammer Center for Leonardo Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a member of the advisory committee. “Bergeon Langle has always been considered a goddess in the field. There is no better expert than she. She is irreplaceable.”

It is common for experts to disagree over how far to go in restoring important masterpieces. The restoration of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel in the 1990s, for example, was criticized by many art experts who argued that much of his original work was lost in the removal of grime and candle smoke.

But the disagreements over the Leonardo restoration are unusual in that it comes from within the Louvre’s advisory body, a group of 20 experts without decision-making power but with global reputations.

“There is no unique truth, but it is fair to say that we haven’t shared the same views about what should and should not be suppressed, the degree of cleaning,” said Mr. Franck, who has written extensively about Leonardo’s painting techniques. “I would have felt quite happy and at ease with a dirtier picture — without bright hues.”

Museums like the Louvre are under pressure to attract audiences with blockbuster shows, often including showy masterpieces whose colors brighten up after thorough cleanings.

The Leonardo painting was acquired by Francis I of France in 1517 and is regarded as perhaps second only to the Mona Lisa among Leonardo’s later works. It is scheduled to go on display in an exhibition at the museum in March, so there is a rush to finish the restoration work.

A negative perception of the restoration of one of the most complex paintings by Leonardo could damage the museum’s reputation as a prudent, nonintrusive restorer.

Among other issues there were disagreements within the committee over whether a varnish on the painting was a glaze applied by Leonardo himself, something left by later restorers, or a combination of the two.

On Tuesday the advisory committee and Vincent Pomarède, the director of painting and the ultimate decision maker regarding the restoration, met for several hours with the technical team to view the painting and discuss what is left to be done.

The cleaning completed, it was decided to proceed with a minor repainting job to fill in gaps, the results of which will be presented to the committee in several weeks.

Mr. Pomarède, meanwhile, decided to keep trees painted in the landscape by someone other than Leonardo, said a member of the committee who declined to be named because of confidentiality rules.

Photo

“The Virgin and Child With Saint Anne,” by Leonardo da Vinci, at the Louvre, before restoration work was started.

The cleaning has a long history. The Louvre abandoned an earlier cleaning attempt in 1993 because of concerns that solvents could damage its “sfumato,” an extraordinarily delicate blending technique that was Leonardo’s trademark.

The current effort began in 2010 after a long period of study. The initial thinking was to take a minimalist approach and do little more than remove stains on the painting.

But under the supervision of Cinzia Pasquali, a conservator who works for the Center for Research and Restoration of the Museums of France, the restoration became more ambitious. The Louvre hierarchy and the majority of the advisory committee also favored a thorough restoration.

Le Journal des Arts, a Paris art publication, has repeatedly criticized the project, arguing that it has been more aggressive than initially conceived and risks doing major damage to the painting. News of the resignations from the advisory committee — Ms. Bergeon Langle on Dec. 21, Mr. Cuzin in October — was first reported in this journal late last month.

The Louvre has staunchly defended its approach. “The recent cleaning was absolutely necessary for both conservation and aesthetical reasons,” Mr. Pomarède said in an e-mail. He added that no member of the committee “has ever said that the cleaning was not prudent and had gone too far technically. It was mostly an aesthetical choice that was discussed.”

He added that all “are satisfied with the result of the cleaning and the beginning of retouching, although some of them would like to see certain small ‘overpaints’ removed.”

He called the two resignations “of course a loss for the diversity of the discussions in the committee,” but declined comment on their reasons for resigning.

In a written rebuttal in October to criticism by the Le Journal des Arts, Mr. Pomarède accused it of “total ignorance” of painting restoration, adding, “Rarely has a restoration been as well prepared, discussed and executed.” The results of cleaning “reveal the excellent state of conservation of the pictorial material and the artistic genius of Leonardo da Vinci, comforting us in the choices made,” he said.

Mr. Pomarède also dismissed reports of disagreements calling it “perfectly normal that a restoration of such a famous work leads to interrogations and discussions.”

But some experts will never abandon the less-is-more standard. “There is an ethical component,” Ms. Bergeon Langle said. “Despite great progress in our competence we need to be driven by modesty. Better and more controllable materials are yet to be discovered. We need to leave some work for future generations.”

A version of this article appears in print on January 4, 2012, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Leonardo Painting’s Restoration Bitterly Divides Art Experts. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe